The cap next year will be around $58.8 million. If Stoner is the #6 Dman, and we bring in another cheap #7, our entire blueline will be less that 17.5 milllion cap hit. Despite all the Schultz haters, that is actually low for a blueline. And considering that it's actually a good line, that is great news.

The issue has, and will be, our forwards. And right now, the only solution is UFAs.

Option 1: (Healthly Bouchard) Sign Kovalchuk (8m/year) (while trading Miettinen for a cheap 4th line forward). We have the cap space. Get it done. Bouchard becomes a center.

Option 3: (Unhealthly Bouchard) With 4 million more in cap space, you go for gold. Trade away Mittens for 4th liner. Try to sign Kovalchuk (with 7.75 m/year cap hit, 10 years)and Plekanec (4.75 m/year, 6 years) to a very long term deals. If you can get those cap hits to those numbers, you will still have 0.5m - 1m cap space, depending on which bottom liners you use.

Option 3: (Nuclear Option) Get Backstrom to waive no-trade clause. Use all the cap space to sign big UFAs and get somebody back in trade.

1. What makes you believe that Kovy would sign here for 8 per year? He has been offered more by Atlanta and also has the KHL offering quite a bit more...

2. Is Plekanec worth that much after having one strong season?

I don't think this is the off-season that is going to make us perennial contenders. Plus, rarely are teams built through free agency. If we were one or two players away from contending, I may agree, but we are not even close yet.

I understand that Schultz might be underrated but the hole that would be created if he were to be traded is closer to being filled by Scandella/Cuma/Prosser/Faulk than the hole up front. We have depth on D and none up front so it is logical that is why CF is shopping Schultz...he has value and there is depth at his position.

I really don't get why people think we have a good blueline.
Zidlicky - Fringe top-4/PPQB
Burns - Top-4, but has never played top-pairing quality consistently
Zanon - Complimentary top-4 at best
Schultz - Same as Zanon, though is worse in our coaches books
Barker - Fringe-NHLer living off his draft hype and high production for 1 year on a stacked team
Stoner - Should be our #7 given his contract

And based on that, we simply can't move Burns, as he is our only hope to get elite play out of this season.

We're definitely not getting Kovalchuk or Plekanec, and I highly doubt Jokinen. But keep on saying it if it makes you feel better...

Because despite your subjective interpretations of our blueline, it's still better than most the league.

But he's not going back to Atlanta. And if he goes to Russia, then it becomes moot, so who cares. And most the teams with cap space are actually worse than us.

So, ask yourself this, if doesn't go to Russia, and if he isn't going back to Atlanta, which NHL teams both want and are able to sign him? When you stop and think for a second, it's actually a very short list of teams, and the Wild are on that list.

But he's not going back to Atlanta. And if he goes to Russia, then it becomes moot, so who cares. And most the teams with cap space are actually worse than us.

So, ask yourself this, if doesn't go to Russia, and if he isn't going back to Atlanta, which NHL teams both want and are able to sign him? When you stop and think for a second, it's actually a very short list of teams, and the Wild are on that list.

Here's the big difference between Burns and Koivu though, and I frankly can't believe so many of you are saying if you sell Burns you have to sell Koivu too.

- Koivu has led the team in points the last two years. Burns had a very good year two years ago, but hasn't been able to stay healthy enough to be that guy again.

- Koivu has been one of the best players on most nights. Burns has been very hit or miss the last couple years.

- Koivu has gotten better every year. Burns' best year was two years ago.

- Koivu makes his linemates way better than they should be. Burns requires a defensive pairing guy to make up for his mistakes.

I'm not trying to bash Burns here, but if someone wants to give us a couple good assets for him, I say we take it. His best strength is rushing the puck up the ice, but how many teams are truly built to take advantage of that? It seems this team has benefited much more from a Johnsson type puck mover than a Burns type puck rusher. Maybe it will be different next year, but we'd have to have a big roster makeover in order to utilize his speed.

The only real way I can see Burns becoming that bona fide #1 guy is if he can turn into a Duncan Keith type defenseman, where he picks his spots, makes a great pass, uses his fantastic skating to constantly prowl in his end, etc. But at 24 years old and 7 years in the league, is he capable of changing his game at this point? Or would it make more sense to bring in a top asset or two up front and see how Scandella, Cuma, Prosser, and/or Stoner can do for this lineup?

I'd disagree there Jarick. Middle pairing ideally. Bottom is more like Scott or Hnidy.

Richards disagrees, Schultz was a #5/6 guy last year in terms of ice time and even strength situations. He's a bottom pairing and PK guy. Burns, Johnsson, Barker, Zanon, Zidlicky, and even Prosser were playing more minutes.

I get your point, but Prosser got garbage time minutes at the end of the year when the team was in freefall mode. That's sort of like saying Kevin Love is not a starter in the NBA and must come off the bench.

__________________
Blog: First Round Bust: A Cast of Thousands celebrating a rather dodgy track record of Minnesota Wild Drafting.

It's ridiculous to number the defensemen. Schultz is a great PK defenseman and very solid 5 on 5, but he doesn't start a lot of offense. The dip in his minutes might have a lot to do with the fact that we played from behind all season long.

Schultz can match up very well against a team's top scorer. His contract isn't ideal, but it's not outrageous either. The problem is that we have Zanon for less money, so that makes Schultz redundant.

Cam Barker is not a fringe NHLer. He lost confidence last year after his PT took a big hit. If he's able to regain some of that swagger, we stole a top pairing defenseman.

We shouldn't trade Burns. The more I've thought about this, the more I'm against it. He's a fan favorite, and we're getting rid of Boogaard. He's got the most potential of any player on our roster, so a move could really bite us in the behind.

Richards disagrees, Schultz was a #5/6 guy last year in terms of ice time and even strength situations. He's a bottom pairing and PK guy. Burns, Johnsson, Barker, Zanon, Zidlicky, and even Prosser were playing more minutes.

That's because Richards is an terrible coach. Look at ice time when Lemaire ran the ship. He knew what to do with Schultz.

Schultz still got 21 minutes a game under Richards, which is #3/#4/#5 territory. Prosser played less and isn't a comparable anyway,

There is ample discussion on how all three of these locations would NOT be a good location for Kovalchuk. And out of those three, LA and St. Loius wouldn't offer any more than the Wild.

Unless some team acts completely irrationally and throws out a mega contract just for the press buzz, there will only be a handful of teams giving contract offers to Kovalchuk, and they will be in the 7.5-8.25 million range. Even Atlanta will have to scale back their offer from what they gave previously.

So, it's not unreasonable to expect Kovalchuk to sign some 10-year, 78 million dollar deal.

Didn't Lemaire use Burns and Schultz together a lot more than Schultz/Johnsson?

Johnsson was out there more often than not with Zidlicky or Bergeron.

Oh, and hai.

Welcome. Great to see more Wild fans here.

Based on my memory, I remember Lemaire playing Burns with Skoula every chance he could possibly get. Used to drive me nuts in fact. He did pair Burns with Schultz as well as far as I can remember. But Johnsson and Schultz were his go-to pairing. He'd mix up the pairings according to situations.

I just don't see any way that Kovalchuk would want to sign here as we are not close to a cup at all, while signing Kovalchuk would help, do we really think he would want to sign here as we haven't made the playoffs the last 2 years? I presume he wants to be on a team that has a pretty good shot at making the playoffs, which, we don't really have a shot with our current roster.

And that was what? Hide him by pairing him with Johnsson? The Wild's best defensive defenseman by a good margin.

You don't "hide" a player by throwing him up against top lines. Schultz usually saw the most PK minutes under JL as well. It's not all coincidence that our defense under that configuration was near the top of the league.

I could be confusing 5 v 5 time versus short handed. Burns/Schultz had the same (or very close) short handed ice time in the random 08 box scores I looked through.

/shrug

I think the reason why Schultz is more trade bait than Burns (not that I agree with it) is that we have to look at what the Wild have versus what other teams need.

There are more than 10 plus teams that need a player like Schultz that can easily absorb and be happy with, his contract.

Unfortunately, there are also a lot of free agents that can fill that role, but they are going to be more expensive. Combine that with the amount of defensemen that will be "on the move" it really becomes more like the goalie situation and our pipe dreams of moving Harding.

Quote:

Hnidy was hidden behind Schultz last year. That's hiding someone.

Hnidy was paired with Johnsson a lot before the trade and then Schultz. So yes, that is how you hide someone.

Frankly, even wanting to trade Schultz with the D we have inked makes me shudder. Porous much? (Stupid Zidlicky extension and raise...)

You are all arguing like there's a huge discrepancy between the defensemen. I'd say that's a pretty consistent defense rotation. This TOI doesn't prove/disprove that Schultz is/isn't worth his contract.

You don't "hide" a player by throwing him up against top lines. Schultz usually saw the most PK minutes under JL as well. It's not all coincidence that our defense under that configuration was near the top of the league.

Being atop of the league in defensive categories was much more about Lemaire than any pairing Nick Schultz was being used in. Let's not play revisionist history here. If Schultz and the defense on a whole was truly top tier, they would have proved as much in a different system.

Quote:

Originally Posted by State of Hockey

Hnidy was hidden behind Schultz last year. That's hiding someone.

And just as you used your 'you do not hide players against top lines', same case could be made here. Lets not act as if Schultz and Hnidy played against any meaningful opposition. Playing as poorly as they did against the bottom two lines is as much of a black mark as any.

Because despite your subjective interpretations of our blueline, it's still better than most the league.

My problem is we don't have a true #1 d-man. And don't give me the Burns crap, he hasn't shown anything consistent enough to consider him a #1 d-man. Zidlicky is near a liability defensively, and Zanon/Barker/Stoner are poor(and in Barker's case, extremely poor) skaters.

My problem is we don't have a true #1 d-man. And don't give me the Burns crap, he hasn't shown anything consistent enough to consider him a #1 d-man. Zidlicky is near a liability defensively, and Zanon/Barker/Stoner are poor(and in Barker's case, extremely poor) skaters.

Define #1 D-man for me. Identify guys who fit your definition, and then average their salaries.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that with Bouchard's albatross contract and Parrish's buyout, we've got 5mil that's just sitting there. That'd pay for a #1 guy or a top-6 forward.

Keep in mind, this article was written about our strength at D and how we might leverage that to improve our forward depth.